edTPA对教师教育政策和实践的影响:认知不公正和缓慢暴力的表现

IF 0.6 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
C. Bernard, Douglas Kaufman, Mark Kohan, Glenn Mitoma
{"title":"edTPA对教师教育政策和实践的影响:认知不公正和缓慢暴力的表现","authors":"C. Bernard, Douglas Kaufman, Mark Kohan, Glenn Mitoma","doi":"10.14507/epaa.31.7597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"edTPA is a widely used teacher performance assessment. However, studies have raised concerns with its use. We conducted a study of candidates’ and faculty members’ perceptions of edTPA on their learning and performance. Analysis of responses revealed six themes: confusion about the meaning of “ready to teach”; interference with relationship building; narrowed responsive teaching practices; concern for placements’ impact on assessments; mistrust of evaluators’ understanding of their contexts; and increased barriers for marginalized candidates. Findings suggest that edTPA can be interpreted as perpetrating forms of “epistemic injustice” and “slow violence” that impede diversity in the profession. To realize the promise of a more diverse teacher workforce—equity for all students and justice for marginalized communities—teacher educators and policymakers must ensure that the ways in which they prepare and evaluate teachers are increasingly more relational, diverse, equitable, and just. ","PeriodicalId":11429,"journal":{"name":"Education Policy Analysis Archives","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"edTPA implications for teacher education policy and practice: Representations of epistemic injustice and slow violence\",\"authors\":\"C. Bernard, Douglas Kaufman, Mark Kohan, Glenn Mitoma\",\"doi\":\"10.14507/epaa.31.7597\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"edTPA is a widely used teacher performance assessment. However, studies have raised concerns with its use. We conducted a study of candidates’ and faculty members’ perceptions of edTPA on their learning and performance. Analysis of responses revealed six themes: confusion about the meaning of “ready to teach”; interference with relationship building; narrowed responsive teaching practices; concern for placements’ impact on assessments; mistrust of evaluators’ understanding of their contexts; and increased barriers for marginalized candidates. Findings suggest that edTPA can be interpreted as perpetrating forms of “epistemic injustice” and “slow violence” that impede diversity in the profession. To realize the promise of a more diverse teacher workforce—equity for all students and justice for marginalized communities—teacher educators and policymakers must ensure that the ways in which they prepare and evaluate teachers are increasingly more relational, diverse, equitable, and just. \",\"PeriodicalId\":11429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Education Policy Analysis Archives\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Education Policy Analysis Archives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.31.7597\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education Policy Analysis Archives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.31.7597","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

edTPA是一种广泛使用的教师绩效评估方法。然而,研究对其使用提出了担忧。我们对候选人和教师对edTPA对他们学习和表现的看法进行了研究。对回答的分析揭示了六个主题:对“准备教学”的含义感到困惑;干扰关系建立;狭窄的响应式教学实践;关注工作安排对评估的影响;不相信评价者对语境的理解;也增加了边缘化候选人面临的障碍。研究结果表明,edTPA可以被解释为阻碍职业多样性的“认知不公正”和“缓慢暴力”的实施形式。为了实现更加多样化的教师队伍的承诺——所有学生平等,边缘化社区公正——教师教育者和政策制定者必须确保他们培养和评估教师的方式越来越具有关联性、多样性、公平和公正。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
edTPA implications for teacher education policy and practice: Representations of epistemic injustice and slow violence
edTPA is a widely used teacher performance assessment. However, studies have raised concerns with its use. We conducted a study of candidates’ and faculty members’ perceptions of edTPA on their learning and performance. Analysis of responses revealed six themes: confusion about the meaning of “ready to teach”; interference with relationship building; narrowed responsive teaching practices; concern for placements’ impact on assessments; mistrust of evaluators’ understanding of their contexts; and increased barriers for marginalized candidates. Findings suggest that edTPA can be interpreted as perpetrating forms of “epistemic injustice” and “slow violence” that impede diversity in the profession. To realize the promise of a more diverse teacher workforce—equity for all students and justice for marginalized communities—teacher educators and policymakers must ensure that the ways in which they prepare and evaluate teachers are increasingly more relational, diverse, equitable, and just. 
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Education Policy Analysis Archives
Education Policy Analysis Archives Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
164
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas/Arquivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas (EPAA/AAPE) is a peer-reviewed, open-access, international, multilingual, and multidisciplinary journal designed for researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and development analysts concerned with education policies. EPAA/AAPE accepts unpublished original manuscripts in English, Spanish and Portuguese without restriction as to conceptual and methodological perspectives, time or place. Accordingly, EPAA/AAPE does not have a pre-determined number of articles to be rejected and/or published. Rather, the editorial team believes that the quality of the journal should be assessed based on the articles that we publish and not the percentage of articles that we reject. For EPAA “inclusiveness” is a key criteria of manuscript quality. EPAA/AAPE publishes articles and special issues at roughly weekly intervals, all of which pertain to educational policy, with direct implications for educational policy. Priority is given to empirical articles. The Editorial Board may also consider other forms of educational policy-relevant articles such as: -methodological or theoretical articles -commentaries -systematic literature reviews
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信